Polar watches -How accurate? Are my exercise calories inflated?

jax_006

Hey All- I have been an avid polar watch user for a few years. I upgraded in January to a polar m400. I love Polar as I feel they are the most accurate considering it's used with a chest strap. I used the fitbit once with my polar and saw how "off" the fitbit was compared to the Polar. I had a different post on here under weight loss, and people said that my exercise calories burned were inflated, which kind of bummed me out, since I have been trying very hard since January to lose weight. So far I am down 10 lbs in 10 weeks (took 2 weeks off for illness).

Since the end of February I upped my exercise regimen to working out exactly 5 days/week at 65 minutes long.
This is what my new regimen looks like now:
-quick 5 minute warm up on spinning bike,
-strength train for 14 minutes,
-hop on cycle for 5 mins,
-strength train for 14 minutes
-and then hop on my spinning bike for the remainder of 20 minutes.

Here are my stats:
Height: 5'3
Current Weight: 142
Goal Weight: 115/120

So my question is, are my exercise calories inflated? I burn around 500 sometimes 600 if I am really pushing hard for 65 minutes. I know everyone is different. What are your thoughts? How do I track my calories burned when doing strength training or lifting weights since people are saying the watch isn't accurate for tracking that kind of exercise? HELP!!!!

EvgeniZyntx

Calories are inflated - a watch that measures HR cannot be generally used accurately for strength training as the increase in HR then is not due to metabolic energy use via the aerobic path but a response to effort and often pressure in the thorax.

You don't track calories for those types of exercises - you guesstimate them. You can probably drop 100 cals from the weight training part and be closer to the truth.

jax_006

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Calories are inflated - a watch that measures HR cannot be generally used accurately for strength training as the increase in HR then is not due to metabolic energy use via the aerobic path but a response to effort and often pressure in the thorax.

You don't track calories for those types of exercises - you guesstimate them. You can probably drop 100 cals from the weight training part and be closer to the truth.

Good to know! In terms of cardio, is the Polar more accurate then? Can I track those calories burned from cardio and log them into MFP and it be true to what was burned?

almancorona88

I'm pretty much I'm the same boat.. I don't have a watch tracker yet but I'm looking for one that is pretty accurate that has it all... HR monitor, gps, calories counter, lol the whole deal but idk which one to go to.. I was looking into the polar m400 and the fitbit blaze... Any ideas?

EvgeniZyntx

jax_006 wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Calories are inflated - a watch that measures HR cannot be generally used accurately for strength training as the increase in HR then is not due to metabolic energy use via the aerobic path but a response to effort and often pressure in the thorax.

You don't track calories for those types of exercises - you guesstimate them. You can probably drop 100 cals from the weight training part and be closer to the truth.

Good to know! In terms of cardio, is the Polar more accurate then? Can I track those calories burned from cardio and log them into MFP and it be true to what was burned?

Reasonably so. (All devices have a margin of error - place it at 10-15% and you are ok) And make sure your weight, age and gender and HR max are entered into the m400. Update your weight data regularly or it will be off.

jax_006

almancorona88 wrote: »

I'm pretty much I'm the same boat.. I don't have a watch tracker yet but I'm looking for one that is pretty accurate that has it all... HR monitor, gps, calories counter, lol the whole deal but idk which one to go to.. I was looking into the polar m400 and the fitbit blaze... Any ideas?

I am biased maybe, but I love Polar. I am on my second one right now (upgraded to the m400, it has GPS!). I didn't like the fitbit because I didn't feel it was as accurate. The Polar has a chest strap which is more accurate than the fitbit which monitors your pulse on your wrist.

EvgeniZyntx

almancorona88 wrote: »

I'm pretty much I'm the same boat.. I don't have a watch tracker yet but I'm looking for one that is pretty accurate that has it all... HR monitor, gps, calories counter, lol the whole deal but idk which one to go to.. I was looking into the polar m400 and the fitbit blaze... Any ideas?

Look at DCrainmaker.com. I've moved away from Polar to Garmin because the GPS integration was just better (and I have a bunch of devices that talk to Garmin).

Polar Suunto and Garmin are solid choices for watches that "have it all".

Azdak

There are 3 issues that affect Polar (and any HRM) calorie accuracy.

1. Does the physiologic response to the exercise fit the heart rate/oxygen uptake assumptions built into the HRM algorithms.

2. Does the estimated max HR in your HRM match your actual max HR

3. Does the estimated VO2 max in the HRM match your true VO2 max

Given that you are only doing 25 min of actual cardio and your weight (64.5 KG), it is likely that 500 kcal/HR is an exaggeration (I would think more like 375-400). If the HRM is consistently reporting that you are working at a high percentage of your max HR, then your actual max HR is probably higher than the age-predicted number programmed into the HRM.

Figuring out VO2 max is trickier. You can try taking the Polar fitness test. I have a V800 and I have take the test twice and, despite a significant increase in workout performance/decrease in heart rate at submax workloads, it showed basically no improvement and, by my estimate, is underestimating my true VO2 max by 15%-20%. So, for me, I am not convinced of its accuracy, but that doesn't mean it's not good for anyone.

So look at tweaking some of your settings. I think the m400 is as good as anything for integrating exercise and activity. For me, my V800 tends to underestimate my cardio calories, so I feel like I have a bigger "fudge factor".

NadiaMayl

I had my metabolic performance measured at the gym. Wore the funky looking mask while exercising, did the rest test, etc... They figured out my VO2, and HR limits per zone and trainer set them up for me on my Polar. It did decrease the numbers it was putting out after each workout, I guess it made the algorithm worm more accurate to my height, age, weight, etc... It is still supposed to be a bit off, so I still subtract 10% just in case.